Agenda item

APPLICATION NO.

21/02715/FULLS

APPLICATION TYPE

FULL APPLICATION - SOUTH

REGISTERED

30.11.2021

APPLICANT

Mr Hanslip

SITE

Land North of Oxlease Meadows, Oxlease Meadows, Romsey,  ROMSEY EXTRA

PROPOSAL

Erection of 43 dwellings and apartments, access, parking, landscaping and associated works following demolition and site clearance

AMENDMENTS

Amended Plans/Additional Information received 29.09.21, 17.01.22, 08.03.22, 09.03.22, 31.03.22, 08.04.22, 21.04.22 & 17.05.22.

CASE OFFICER

Paul Goodman

REFUSED for the reasons:

1.

The proposal represents unjustified development in the countryside beyond the defined settlement boundaries and established building lines within this part of the Borough, for which no overriding need or justification has been provided. The proposed development would result in the introduction of additional housing that would be inappropriately located on a rural site away from existing settlement boundaries and would breach established informal building lines. The built development, so close to the nature reserve and public vantage points, would be an obvious and harmful intrusion into this countryside setting, adversely affecting the character and appearance of the area when viewed from public vantage points and would result in visual harm to the character and appearance of this area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies COM2 and E2(a) of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). The Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land and the local plan is also not absent or silent in respect of policies that affect the development and against which it can adequately be considered, there is therefore currently no need to release further land for housing.

2.

The benefits of the scheme advanced by the applicant are acknowledged. However, the adverse impacts highlighted above would conflict with the development plan as a whole; it would conflict with the general spatial strategy including the settlement hierarchy and delivery strategy (COM2). In doing so to grant permission would undermine the development plan and the sustainable pattern of development that it seeks to achieve across the Borough. This is of substantial importance in the plan led system, given section 38(6) and the advice in the NPPF. The benefits outlined by the applicant are not, in the Council’s judgement, sufficient to outweigh the real harm to both the character and appearance of the area and the development plan as a whole, which is real, obvious and significant. The proposal would thus result in conflict with local and national planning policies. The public benefits identified are limited and in most cases generic benefits which could be provided by any site and a site that would not result in harm to such a sensitive rural area.  The proposal contravenes the key development plan policies,

and the limited benefits it brings about do not outweigh those contraventions. Particularly because the Council has already planned to deliver substantially the same benefits elsewhere around the borough in a way that is more sustainable, through its adopted local plan.  Recent appeal decisions relating to other sites are noted. However, those sites were considered on their own merits and are not, in the view of the Council comparable to the proposal. In summary, granting planning permission for the development would cut across many years of careful, detailed planning for the sustainable growth of Test Valley Borough. Delivering the proposal on this site may be many things, but it would not be “plan-led”, in accordance with local and national planning policies and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies COM2 and E2(a) of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021)

3.

The proposed development is contrary to policy E5 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan, the New Forest Special protection area (SPA) interim mitigation framework and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in that no contribution is provided in order to address the impact of the development on the New Forest SPA resulting in the development having an unmitigated additional burden.

4.

The proposed development by means of it nature, location and scale could have likely significant affects upon the nearby Solent and Southampton Water European Designated Site which is designated for its conservation importance. In the absence of a completed legal agreement securing the proposed off site mitigation, the applicant has failed to satisfy the Council that the proposal would not adversely affect the special interest of the Solent and Southampton Water European Designated Site, therefore the application is contrary to Policies COM2 and E5 of the adopted Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

5.

In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of and a financial contribution towards on and off site new affordable housing, including their subsequent retention in perpetuity to occupation by households in housing need, the proposal is contrary to policies COM6 and COM7 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016) and the Infrastructure and Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2009).